Tucker v. United States

── Tucker v. United States ── Case No.: 24-2864 Court: Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit Date: April 01, 2026 Category: General 24-2864 Tucker v. United States UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT SUMMARY ORDER RULINGS BY SUMMARY ORDER DO NOT HAVE PRECEDENTIAL EFFECT. CITATION TO A SUMMARY ORDER FILED ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1, 2007, IS PERMITTED AND IS GOVERNED BY FEDERAL RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 32.1 AND THIS COURT’S LOCAL RULE 32.1.1. WHEN CITING A SUMMARY ORDER IN A DOCUMENT FILED WITH THIS COURT, A PARTY MUST CITE EITHER THE FEDERAL APPENDIX OR AN ELECTRONIC DATABASE (WITH THE NOTATION “SUMMARY ORDER”). A PARTY CITING TO A SUMMARY ORDER MUST SERVE A COPY OF IT ON ANY PARTY NOT REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL. At a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, in the City of New York, on the 1st day of April, two thousand twenty-six. PRESENT: DENNIS JACOBS, PIERRE N. LEVAL, RICHARD J. SULLIVAN, Circuit Judges. _____________________________________ SCOTT TUCKER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. No. 24-2864 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee. _____________________________________ For Petitioner-Appellant: BENJAMIN A. SILVERMAN, Law Office of Benjamin Silverman, New York, NY. For Respondent- MICAH F. FERGENSON, (James Ligtenberg, Appellee: on the brief), Assistant United States Attorneys, for Jay Clayton, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York, New York, NY. Appeal from an order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York (P. Kevin Castel, Judge). UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the August 28, 2024 order of the district court is AFFIRMED. Scott Tucker – who is serving a 200-month sentence following his conviction after trial on charges including racketeering, fraud, and money laundering – appeals from the district court’s denial of his motion to vacate his conviction under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and his motion for a sentence reduction under 18 U.S.C. § 3582. Specifically, Tucker contends that he is entitled to a new trial because his court- appointed defense lawyer, Lee Ginsberg, labored under an unwaivable per se conflict of interest when, “at the time of Tucker’s trial,” he became the subject of an investigation by prosecutors from the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, “the same entity that was prosecuting Tucker.” 2 Dist. Ct. Doc. No. 487 at 21. He also argues that the district court abused its discretion when it declined to grant his request for compassionate release in light of his mother’s illness. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts, procedural history, and issues on appeal, to which we refer only as necessary to explain our decision. I. Tucker’s Counsel Did Not Labor Under an Unwaivable Conflict. The sole issue on appeal with respect to the denial of Tucker’s section 2255 petition is the one for which we issued a certificate of appealability – namely: Whether an unwaivable conflict was presented where [one of] Petitioner’s appointed trial counsel engaged in a proffer session with members of the same United States Attorney’s Office that was prosecuting Petitioner, about two weeks into Petitioner’s trial, because trial counsel faced potential criminal exposure for matters not related to the cha